I. BACKGROUND 

On August 1, 2022, plaintiff Josue Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Tyler Kelleher, Horizon Production Resources, LLC, and Does 1 to 50 for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision. Trial is currently set for July 8, 2024. 

In July 2023, Plaintiff served Tyler Kelleher and Horizon Production Resources, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). (Proofs of Service, July 12, 2023.). On October 11, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.  

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming Foxburg Productions, LLC (“Foxburg”) as Doe 1. Foxburg has yet to appear in this action to date.  

On April 18 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to continue the trial date and all related dates from July 8, 2024 to December 9, 2024, or to a date thereafter. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. 

Defendants aver there is good cause to continue the trial date by six months for multiple reasons. Aside from Foxburg having yet to file its Answer, the parties have agreed to attend mediation on June 17, 2024. Defendants argue they will require additional time to complete discovery as to Foxburg in the event that the matter is not resolved at mediation. Defendants contend Plaintiff’s counsel will not stipulate to a trial continuance on the grounds that additional discovery is not warranted. 

Plaintiff argues that a six month trial continuance is not necessary, because Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s depositions have already been taken, and Plaintiff was scheduled for a defense medical examination on April 30, 2024. Plaintiff contends that if Foxburg fails to respond by May 1, 2024, that Plaintiff will move for default. Plaintiff argues there are only small discovery matters related to Foxburg, and that a six month continuance is beyond what is needed for Defendants to obtain information. Plaintiff argues he will suffer prejudice because he sustained severe injuries and this case matter is already two years old.  

Defendants contend this case is not ready for trial, and that Plaintiff did not name Foxburg as a defendant until recently. Defendants aver Plaintiff delayed prosecution of his own case from the outset, and there is stil discovery left in this matter. Defendants argue Plaintiff recently noticed three depositions and propounded a second set of written discovery on defendant Tyler Kelleher. 

II. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

Here, Defendants have been in this action for approximately seven months, and Foxburg has yet to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff avers that he will seek default judgment against Foxburg should it fail to respond by May 1, 2024, yet to date no entry of default has been obtained against Foxburg to date. The parties dispute the amount of remaining discovery yet to be completed, but appear to agree that there is still discovery remaining. Further, Plaintiff identifies no prejudice from a six month continuance aside from the continuance in itself. Plaintiff asserts his injuries are severe and that therefore trial cannot be delayed, yet Plaintiff notably waited approximately eleven months after filing his action to serve Defendants. Further, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming Foxburg as Doe 1 just two months ago, and provides no reason as to why Foxburg could not have been named earlier, or any arguments concerning Foxburg’s involvement in this matter to support his contention that not a large amount of discovery will need to be completed. This case matter is not yet old, and there has only been one prior request for a continuance. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date.  

III. CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is therefore GRANTED.   

The July 8, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The June 24, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 10th day of May 2024